I don't feel the need to post variations, but Black has a permanent advantage in piece activity as his rooks will get to open files quickly and White's will not. There are definitely lines that peter out to nothing for either side, but I can't imagine Black being in any sort of danger, even against a higher rated opponent. I think that the onus is on White to show that he can coordinate his pieces here without allowing mass simplification to an easy draw where, frankly to my eyes, Black has the easier time of it.

Follow the video a bit more and Gusti - while explaining his idea 8.Ng5 - names the concrete problem White has in the position Eric quoted. Black could reach the exact same position after 14.e3 with the white knight either on e1 or g5. Gusti now points out, that with the n on e1 (restricting the movement of the f1 rook, thus leading to a pin of the knight) 14...Bh3 15.Ng2 e5! is absolutely fine for Black and one has to agree. So, 8.Ng5 among other things was played to avoid this.

Avrukh, who doesn't give 9...Q:b3 as Balck's main try btw, very lazily cites the only played game so far between two rather weak players with 9.Qb3 Qb6 10.cd Qxb3 11.axb3 cd 12.Nxd5 Nc6, where 12...N:d5 is indeed very clearly indicated by computer and 12...Nc6 immediately a clear advantage for White. So not hard to notice. Indeed not very convincing. And I've bought the book btw.

Gusti's video is interesting and to be recommended for many aspects, not just opening.

Black is definitely risking something here - he's got more active pieces but that's it. Nothing permanent to compensate for the pawn minus and no real targets for attack/clear plans to generate a lot of activity.

Play accurately and black quite possibly fine. Play superficial, active looking moves and white will unravel and you'll be a pawn down for very little. Then you'll start suffering and quite possibly lose.

White has pawns on b2 and b3, but the extra pawn is on d4. Playing through the handful of games that have reached this or similar positions, it appears Black may have enough for a draw, particularly as opposite Bishop endings tend to arise. Not much of a choice if Black wanted chances to play for a win I would think.

You're making generalizations, but the actual position in question is this one (maybe White's last move is not forced):

Perhaps Black doesn't have great winning chances, I'll give you that, but I have a hard time seeing any shred of an advantage for White given the poor placement of his pieces, and frankly if I had to choose I'd probably rather take Black. I might overvalue harmonious piece play and undervalue extra pawns, I don't know, but...I do think that I'd rather have Black here. Especially if I were up against a much higher-rated opponent. In fact if I had White in that position against a much higher-rated player, I'd be worried that Black's piece activity would cause me too much problems and I'd risk losing, whereas I don't think that Black is risking much at all.

In other words, against someone clearly stronger than myself, I'd be worried that if I had the white pieces I might lose, but if I had the Black pieces I'd be pretty confident of a draw.

White has pawns on b2 and b3, but the extra pawn is on d4. Playing through the handful of games that have reached this or similar positions, it appears Black may have enough for a draw, particularly as opposite Bishop endings tend to arise. Not much of a choice if Black wanted chances to play for a win I would think.

Doesn't the d5 pawn just fall after Qb3 ? I don't think White has to know very much to find it either. It could be one of those lines where White wins a pawn but not the game, but as Black in a Kings Indian you have ambitions which go beyond defending a position a pawn down.

Did you watch Gustafsson's video? The whole point is that Black gets activity and good compensation for the pawn if White grabs it, enough that it's not a good try for a White advantage. I haven't done any analysis myself, but my feeling when watching was I'd rather be Black.

After 8...d5, Gustafsson refers to the line given by Avrukh, which continues 9.Qb3 Qb6 10.cd Qxb3 11.axb3 cd 12.Nxd5 Nc6. Here Gustafsson points out that Black can play the improvement 12...Nxd5 13. Bxd5 Nc6, as endorsed by his engine, and considers that White has no advantage here. Sure, White has an extra pawn, but it's doubled and isolated, and Black's pieces are all developed and active while White's QB is still on c1 and the N that moved back to e1 has not re-entered the game yet. I would imagine many King's Indian players would be quite happy to have superior development and more active pieces like this at the cost of a not particularly great pawn, even if the position is objectively equal.

Doesn't the d5 pawn just fall after Qb3 ? I don't think White has to know very much to find it either. It could be one of those lines where White wins a pawn but not the game, but as Black in a Kings Indian you have ambitions which go beyond defending a position a pawn down.

Did you watch Gustafsson's video? The whole point is that Black gets activity and good compensation for the pawn if White grabs it, enough that it's not a good try for a White advantage. I haven't done any analysis myself, but my feeling when watching was I'd rather be Black.

It could be a matter of people trusting theory, or perhaps once someone sets out to play the KID they don't want to play something like a Schlecter Slav.

Doesn't the d5 pawn just fall after Qb3 ? I don't think White has to know very much to find it either. It could be one of those lines where White wins a pawn but not the game, but as Black in a Kings Indian you have ambitions which go beyond defending a position a pawn down.

At move 7, Botvinnik would prefer .. a6 hoping for 8 a4 which is met by 8. .. a5. Assuming it's a valid positional trap to capture the b4 square, he caught Ray Keene in it around 50 years ago.

In my database of around 6.2 million games, the position after 8.Ne1 has been reached 347 times and Black has played 8...d5 in just 8 of those games, its strongest exponent being rated 2501 Elo. In these eight games, White scores five wins and three games are drawn. Of course, with such a tiny sample, this last statistic is meaningless, but it's interesting that of the many strong players (2600 plus) who have taken the Black side of this line (Carlsen, Wang Hao and Kamsky among them), nobody has played 8...d5. I'm not pointing any of this out to tell you that you're wrong - my feeling about the move seems to be largely the same as yours - but I'm curious to know why it is that so many players far stronger than either of us take a different view. For what it's worth, Avrukh writes of 8...d5 in his book: 'This would be a good positional move, if it were not for the following concrete problem', giving 9.Qb3! attacking both d5 and b7. It is precisely this that Jan Gustafsson finds unconvincing.

I understand the idea, but really, reacting with ...d5 has never been taken seriously before? That seems like the most natural move in the position, i.e. White plays an undeveloping move to prepare e2-e4, so Black might as well move the d-pawn again to prevent it. Once the pawn is on d5 the knight certainly wants to be back on f3 (or somewhere that it could apply pressure to d5), which means that Black loses one tempo but White loses two.

Of course I'm oversimplifying, I just find it hard to believe that 8...d5 was dismissed or overlooked for so long, it's the most natural move on the board.

It's a topic for another thread, but I liked the Geller Gambit idea that Flores punted against Jan, I'll have to look into that as well.

I would be very skeptical of claims that moves like 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nf3 d6 6.0-0 c6 7.Nc3 Bf5 8.Ne1 offer White a genuine hope for an advantage. Interesting idea and all, but what has Black done that is worthy of punishment in the form of moving a developed knight to the back rank?

I think the idea is that the Black bishop on f5 is exposed and will have to move again when White plays e4, and this gain of tempo justifies the manoeuvre with the knight. This piece often ends up on c2, arguably a better square than f3, still supporting d4 but also ready to take part in play on the Queenside, as well as getting out of the way of the Bishop on g2. I've always felt this is a natural and coherent redeployment. I think kylemeister's right that the idea of 8 ...d5 in response to this is not covered in older books. I suppose it's not a move that Black usually thinks about playing in the King's Indian, but it certainly looks logical and strong here. If White is prevented from playing e4, 8.Ne1 makes much less sense.